by Frank James
Bernard Madoff, Wall Street's alleged Ponzi king, made political donations to Washington types which evidently bought him some access in here.
But it appears he had a light footprint in the nation's capital and I haven't seen a story yet that indicates his money (or his clients' money perhaps) was able to buy him anything more than a returned phone call or invitation to appear at a hearing. Not saying that it didn't. Just haven't seen any evidence of that.
As Andy Zajac and Janet Hook of the Tribune's Washington D.C. bureau reported:
... For years, Madoff was a generous political donor to mostly Democratic causes and maintained a steady lobbying presence through the government relations firm of a former New York congressman.
Still, despite spending more than $900,000 on lobbying fees and campaign contributions over the past decade, Madoff maintained a low profile in the capital.
"Until this thing blew up, I didn't even know who he was," said former Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.), who headed a House banking subcommittee for 12 years, through 2006, that considered issues important to Madoff.
"It's a bit odd," Baker said. "I was a big player on market data fees and electronic exchanges"--two of the issues that Madoff's lobbying firm, Lent Scrivner & Roth, listed as advocating on for the New York mogul. "I don't remember having a visit or a discussion on these matters with the firm."
"His profile as a large giver certainly gave him more access," said the former Democratic fundraiser, who did not want to be named because he wants to stay out of the scandal. "He was giving both to charities and political folks to enhance his standing."
After the scandal became known, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who received at least $12,000 from Madoff and his wife since 1992, donated that amount to charity. Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon said the senator had met Madoff "a few times, but not in the last several years."
Let's hope the charity Schumer donated the money to was one of those hurt by Madoff's alleged illegality.
Comments
So this means that he was either shrewd and carefully covered his tracks, or he was a generous and devoted advocate of the causes of the Democratic party.
.
...Hmmm, which is it?
Posted by: MJ | December 22, 2008 12:33 PM
Who was in charge of the SEC, MJ? How is it some foreign investors saw threw the scam 9 years ago and SEC didn't investigate?
Posted by: dt | December 22, 2008 2:05 PM
dt,
The post is about his political donations -- apparently mostly (not solely) to Democrats -- and what this money did or didn't buy. So far there are no indications that his donations bought him anything substantive. But I'm just repeating what FJ wrote above; maybe you should have read that.
.
The obvious questions that are implied: Are we to are we to assume that he's been generous, altruistic and/or sincerely believed in the politics espoused by the people to whom he gave money? That doesn't seem plausible.
.
Or do we just not know what influence was bought and sold? That doesn't seem plausible, either.
.
Just askin'.
Posted by: MJ | December 22, 2008 3:20 PM
Had Republicans succeeded in privatizing social security, how many people would've seen their retirement funds go down with Bernie Madoff?
Posted by: malphie | December 22, 2008 4:26 PM
Madoff would be perfect to run Soc Sec, since that is the ultimate ponzi scheme
Posted by: Terry | December 23, 2008 10:26 PM